Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANRversusBHAMABAI LAXMAN JADHAV
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed as the compensation issue has already been resolved in the earlier appeal.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed a judgment and award dated 26 March 2009 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, concerning land acquired for the Terna Medium Project at Makni. The respondent, Bhamabai Laxman Jadhav, had claimed compensation for the acquired land. The High Court noted that it had previously enhanced compensation for claimants in First Appeal No. 550 of 1993 and related matters arising from the same project. Given that the compensation issue had already been settled, the court found no merit in the State’s present appeal. Consequently, the First Appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the State of Maharashtra can obtain further relief on compensation for land acquired for the Terna Medium Project in light of the earlier enhancement of compensation in First Appeal No. 550 of 1993.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- appeal
- Terna Medium Project
- judicial review
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:46176
232-FA-598-2011.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
232 FIRST APPEAL NO. 598 OF 2011
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
VERSUS
Bhamabai Laxman Jadhav
……
Mr. D.R. Korde, AGP for Appellant-State
…...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned AGP for the appellant–State.
2. The present First Appeal and Cross-Objections arise out of the
Judgment and Award dated 26.03.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Latur, in Land Acquisition Reference No.275 of 2008.
3. The land of the respondent-claimant was acquired for the Terna
Medium Project, Makni. This Court has already enhanced the compensation
payable to the claimants in First Appeal No.550 of 1993 and connected
matters arising out of the same project. In view of the same, no case is made
out by the appellant–State for interference with the impugned Judgment
and Award. The First Appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
4. The First Appeal stands dismissed.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane
Checking your session…